356 angelika berlejung
Jezreel Valley, megiddo, dor, and transjordan were lost to the assyrians,
who transformed much of this territory into assyrian provinces. roughly
one decade later (722/20 B.C.) samaria shared the same fate. the cross-
over deportations of the assyrians in the former aramaean and israelite
areas in north palestine of both sides of the river Jordan certainly de-con-
structed aramaean tribal structures and identity. But aramaic81 had
become the second language of the Neo-assyrian empire in the Neo-
assyrian period82 and was in palestine successively influencing83 and
replacing the native hebrew, moabite, ammonite, and other local lan-
guages. in the persian period the documents and even short notes of
everyday life in the province of yehud are all written in aramaic.84 more
than one thousand aramaic ostraca datable between 363/2 and 313/2 B.C.
from idumaea/edom attest the importance and continuity of aramaic as
the administrative language at the end of the persian and beginning of the
hellenistic periods.85
- In Search of Aramaeans in Palestine
the ability to identify ethnicity or ethnic identity on the basis of mate-
rial culture is an issue of debate. in case of the labels “aramaean” and
“israelite” as ethnic categories, it is very difficult or even futile to try to
identify a site in Cis- or transjordan as aramaean or israelite based on
the material culture only. scholars today continue to search for ethnic
markers in the material culture that would indicate aramaean presence
or absence in south syria/palestine beyond any doubt. the problem is
that a typical “aramaean” everyday material culture is difficult to grasp.86
material culture is always determined by political, social, and economic
factors—and also somehow by ethnic identity. But it is very difficult to
draw sharp lines, since ethnic identity usually only becomes visible in
81 for aramaic within the North-West semitic languages, see Gianto 2008.
82 Consider lemaire 2001b: 8–12 and the catalogue (texts mainly from the 7th century
B.C. from various places and collections). Only no. 24 is from the persian period.
83 for the interaction between hebrew and aramaic during the first millennium B.C.,
see lemaire 2006a.
84 for the linguistic situation in the persian-period province of yehud, compare
kottsieper 2007b. for a survey of the few epigraphical sources from yehud, see kottsieper
2007b: 104–109. hebrew was only used in the cult and within the nearer context of the
temple. since the Jerusalem temple played a key role in issuing coins, hebrew language
and script survived on coins. Coins that were minted by a priest or former priest used
hebrew.
85 lemaire 2001a: 8 n. 6 (literature); lemaire 1996; id. 2002a.
86 see also the reservations of sader 2010: 288f.